General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Thousands-to-one odds, anyway.

Nope. Millions. Out of the couple of dozen artillery rounds

How many shells do you think have been used as IEDs? It's not 'dozens'.

Nope. Pretty close to that. Most of them have been explosives of other
types.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:46:43 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

The claim was that there was a clear and obvious threat. Where was it?
What made Iraq so special compared to more evident proliferators and
producers of WME?

I asked eighteen months ago and never got an answer.

Some of us have made no secret of this: I was saying at the time that
the most I expected anybody to find were old stockpiles of chemical
munitions buried amongst a blundering Arab totalitarian bureaucracy.
Taking intelligence intercepts of what people amongst Saddam's
headquarters were saying as gospel made as much sense as assuming that
Hitler's spring-1945 gibbering about moving entire Panzer armies from
his bunker had some basis in fact, instead of referring to an
under-equipped rabble of Volkstrum.

So to my mind the whole WMD thing was simply a legalistic fig-leaf for
the removal of Saddam from the very beginning. Having said that, I'm
confident his regime was in breach of UN resolutions, if only because
it didn't have the capacity to run things efficiently enough to ensure
the complete disposal of it's WMD programmes, even if it had adopted
that as a policy.

Gavin Bailey

--

Apply three phase AC 415V direct to MB. This work real good. How you know, you
ask? Simple, chip get real HOT. System not work, but no can tell from this.
Exactly same as before. Do it now. - Bart Kwan En

This is a war nobody believes in any more.


This war is universally supported by informed, intelligent people.



Consider this -- Anthony Cordesman writing in today's NY Times::

"It is all very well to talk about a global war on terrorism. To win it,
however, you have to fight it — on every front. We know that by the time of
the 9/11 attacks, some 70,000 to 100,000 young men had been through some form
of Islamist training camp, and that Al Qaeda had affiliates or some kind of tie
to movements in more than 60 countries. In the years that have followed, the
United States defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but failed to
capture many of the leaders or secure the country, and has not completed the
nation-building that could bring true victory. The dispersal of terrorists has
destabilized western Pakistan, and the resulting political struggle has
strengthened Islamists in the rest of the country and created a new regional
threat.

Yet instead of wrapping up that fight, Washington invaded Iraq. While getting
rid of Saddam Hussein was wonderful for the Iraqi people, there is still no
evidence that Iraq was ever a center of terrorism or had strong ties to
Islamist extremists. As in Afghanistan, we failed to secure the country after
our military success and have been far to slow to create a meaningful plan for
nation-building. There is daily, violent evidence that the American invasion
has bred a mix of Iraqi Islamists and foreign volunteers that is a growing
threat.

The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London has estimates that
Al Qaeda and its affiliates now have a strength of 18,000 men, many joining the
movement as a result of the Afghan and Iraq conflicts. Some American
intelligence experts on Iraq feel that the number of insurgents may still be
growing faster than Coalition Provision Authority's military operations can
reduce them."

We are -less- safe now, because of Bush.

Walt

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54, "William Wright"
wrote:

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
snip
Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd
have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.


And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942.
Since
we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that
was
a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the
people
who actually formulate it.

Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to
have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle
them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was
at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French
vessels might be taken by the Axis.

Hmmm. Sounds like us, Iraq and WMD.


By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French
were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes
stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support
to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German and
Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK
also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in
Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if
they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary.

Sounds like Iraq again.

Also you left out the part about supporting the grand strategy of the United
States. It was the strategy to defeat Germany first. It was politically
important to get US forces into combat against the Germans in 1942 lest
those forces get siphoned off to the Pacific. The British made it abundantly
clear that a return to Europe was flat impossible in 1942, something the
Americans had a hard time letting go of. TORCH was the compromise.

People should be some what cautious about judging our current strategy
because unless they are on the National Security Council, they are making an
awful lot of assumptions. One thing is for sure. We are deluged in
information and most of it is crap. A good portion of what we see reported
is just plain wrong and another good portion is just plain lies. But then
misinformation is also a weapon of war.

In article yGHvc.37385$3x.8154@attbi_s54, "William Wright"
wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54, "William Wright"
wrote:



Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to
have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle
them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was
at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French
vessels might be taken by the Axis.

Hmmm. Sounds like us, Iraq and WMD.

Similar enough situations to be worth using. There also have been many
cases, by many nations, of hot pursuit of attackers into other
countries, once the country to which they escaped has been warned that
they need to take action.


By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French
were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes
stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support
to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German
and
Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK
also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in
Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if
they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary.

Sounds like Iraq again.

I'm not sure I follow your point, unless you are referring to Iraq as a
large-scale supporter of terrorism. The al-Qaeda relation to the Taliban
was much more apparent.

Also you left out the part about supporting the grand strategy of the
United States.

No, I didn't leave it out -- it wasn't relevant to the discussion, which
was dealing at the operational level of the French fleet and Vichy
support for Germany. I wasn't aware the discussion was extending to the
strategic level.

It was the strategy to defeat Germany first. It was politically
important to get US forces into combat against the Germans in 1942 lest
those forces get siphoned off to the Pacific.

Politically important to whom?

The British made it abundantly clear that a return to Europe

The US SLEDGEHAMMER proposal, which the British (quite correctly)
rejected, was for a major landing on the scale of Normandy. The British
were not opposed to raids and peripheral actions.

was flat impossible in 1942, something the
Americans had a hard time letting go of. TORCH was the compromise.

People should be some what cautious about judging our current strategy
because unless they are on the National Security Council, they are making
an
awful lot of assumptions.

In like manner, US intelligence had to be somewhat cautious in judging
the strategy of the fUSSR Defense Council, or whatever strategy was
inside Hitler's head. That still doesn't mean that it isn't necessary
to make judgements, in order to select one's own actions. A National
Intelligence Estimate is an estimate, not revelation.


One thing is for sure. We are deluged in
information and most of it is crap. A good portion of what we see
reported
is just plain wrong and another good portion is just plain lies. But then
misinformation is also a weapon of war.

Of course. See _Bodyguard of Lies_ (Anthony Cave-Brown) for the
primarily British cover and deception history of WWII. Unfortunately,
the US Field Manual on Cover & Deception is no longer available for
public release. The fUSSR put disinformation at a very high level of the
General Staff.

Walt, I have to wonder why that slack media doesn't get credit for reporting
that one of Kerry's supervisors in Viet Nam who had written a glowing fitness
report on him at the time and who now, thirty plus years later, came out from
under his rock whining that he didn't really mean it and that Kerry really
did a
lousy job. Doesn't that kind of examination and reporting of minutia count?
I
think Vietnam IS an issue and it'll remain one.

George Z.


It definitely is and the Dems need to pound on the fact that Junior did not
complete his military service honorably.

Walt

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/4/04 2:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Walt, I have to wonder why that slack media doesn't get credit for reporting
that one of Kerry's supervisors in Viet Nam who had written a glowing
fitness
report on him at the time and who now, thirty plus years later, came out
from
under his rock whining that he didn't really mean it and that Kerry really
did a
lousy job. Doesn't that kind of examination and reporting of minutia count?
I
think Vietnam IS an issue and it'll remain one.

George Z.


It definitely is and the Dems need to pound on the fact that Junior did not
complete his military service honorably.

Walt


What military service?

..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 04 Jun 2004 14:02:04 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


What military service?
.
Arthur Kramer

Art, you of all people should respect someone who earned a commission
in the USAF and completed AF pilot training, then went on to
operationally qualify in a single-seat/single-engine fighter and fly
it for four and a half years.

Did you serve that long?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
How many shells do you think have been used as IEDs? It's not 'dozens'.

Nope. Pretty close to that. Most of them have been explosives of other
types.

How many IEDs do you think have been detonated or disarmed?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/4/04 2:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Walt, I have to wonder why that slack media doesn't get credit for
reporting
that one of Kerry's supervisors in Viet Nam who had written a glowing
fitness
report on him at the time and who now, thirty plus years later, came out
from
under his rock whining that he didn't really mean it and that Kerry
really
did a
lousy job. Doesn't that kind of examination and reporting of minutia
count?
I
think Vietnam IS an issue and it'll remain one.

George Z.


It definitely is and the Dems need to pound on the fact that Junior did
not
complete his military service honorably.

Walt


What military service?

Oh, boy...Art, the originator of that infamous claim that the Guard/Reserve
were doing nothing much during WWII (having completely missed the fact that
the entire Guard and Reserve structure had been mobilized and off to war
some three years before he even became old enough to enter the service), now
wants to go back to his "Guard is not service" BS. Hey, Art, have you
happened to notice what organizations are sustaining disproportionate combat
casualties the last few weeks in Iraq? You might be surprised...

Brooks


.
Arthur Kramer